- (1.) The instant criminal revision has been filed under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure challenging the order dated 26.02.2011 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, whereby the petitioners have been summoned as accused to face trial on an application of the prosecution under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. in case FIR No. 275, dated 28.12.2009, under Sections 148, 307, 324, 323, 149 IPC read with Section 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Patran. Brief material facts of the case are that Sakattar Singh complainant is having a dispute regarding taking of lease of 7 kanals of land of Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Gulahar. On 28.12.2009, the petitioners accompanied by other accused out of whom some have been charge- sheeted and are facing trial under Sections 307, 324, 323, 506, 148, IPC read with Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, have inflicted injuries on the person of complainant and his companions. The petitioners were found innocent during investigation and their names were shown in the column no.2 of the report submitted under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The instant fight is outcome of the civil dispute pending between the parties over the gram panchayat land.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that no material is available on record on the basis of which petitioners could be summoned and ordered to face trial. Learned counsel for the petitioners further argued that powers under Section 319 Cr.P.C. are to be used very sparingly for summoning additional accused. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the petitioner no.1 - Jinder Kaur @ Shinder Kaur is a village Sarpanch and the land of the gram panchayat is being given on lease. For the purpose of putting pressure upon the petitioners, the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C has been moved and the names of the petitioners have been wrongly mentioned in the FIR. The only allegation even in the FIR against petitioner no.1 is to the effect that she has raised a lalkara and petitioner no.2 was having a dang in hand, only their presence has been shown at the alleged place of occurrence. None of the petitioners has been attributed any overt act or injury to any members of the complainant party. During investigation, petitioners have been found to be innocent and were not sent for trial.
(3.) Learned State counsel vehemently opposed the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and submitted that there are sufficient grounds to show that petitioners have caused injury to the person of complainant party. Learned State counsel has further vehemently argued that the names of the petitioners figured in the FIR and their presence is very much there. As such, the petitioners along with the persons who are already facing trial, have been rightly summoned to face trial. I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.;